HC Deb 05 June 1872 vol 211 cc1259-61

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. GREGORY

, in moving that the Bill be read a second time, said, it was identical with one introduced by him last year for the abolition of the registration of deeds in Middlesex. His Bill was read a second time last year, and there was an express understanding that the Government would bring in a measure on the same subject this Session. Unfortunately, the Government had been unable to redeem this pledge, and he had, therefore, felt it his duty to re-introduce the Bill. Having explained the provisions of the Bill last Session, there was no occasion to repeat them, and he would conclude by moving the second reading of it.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Gregory.)

MR. M'MAHON

said, he strongly objected to the Bill, for the reason that the measure would put an end to a system of registration which had existed in Middlesex since 1709, and had been productive of nothing but good. Soon after its introduction here it was adopted in Yorkshire, and subsequently was extended to Ireland, where the titles of estates would, but for its operation, be far more difficult of investigation than they now were. For the last 10 years a good deal had been heard about Land Transfer Acts, and it was understood that a comprehensive measure would be proposed by the Government next year. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would withdraw this Bill and wait to see what were the proposals of the Government.

MR. R. TORRENS

said, he would remind the hon. Member who had just sat down, that there was a marked distinction between the system of registration which existed in Middlesex and that existing in Ireland and Scotland. In Ireland and Scotland registration was treated as notice to every person dealing with the land; but that was not the case in Middlesex, the result being that, notwithstanding the most careful search, purchasers and mortgagees there were not protected in their titles. Having been for many years employed as registrar, he could say that such a system was quite useless, and only added to the cost of conveyancing. He should therefore support the Bill.

MR. A. H. BROWN

said, he had in his hand a memorial signed by 209 solicitors in London who deprecated the discontinuance of the registration. He was willing to admit that reforms were necessary, but should certainly oppose abolition. The object should be rather to establish other registries in counties where they did not now exist.

MR. LEEMAN

said, he did not think it right that a private Member should bring on a question of this importance, really affecting owners of property not only in Middlesex but in Yorkshire, until the Government had the opportunity of bringing the whole subject before the House and dealing with it generally. He hoped that the hon. proposer of the Bill would withdraw it, and wait for the introduction of a general measure to be brought in by the Government.

MR. F. S. POWELL

said, that there was almost a unanimous feeling in Yorkshire in favour of the system of registration; and, in his opinion, an improved system of registration would greatly facilitate the transfer of land. He, therefore, deprecated any measure which would tend to weaken the principle of registration.

MR. DENMAN

said, he could testify to the assistance afforded by the Registry of Middlesex in preventing frauds which would otherwise have been triumphant, and in detecting frauds. The Bill, in abolishing that useful system, would also lead to a considerable expenditure of money; and, moreover, its abolition was not in accordance with the intentions of the Commissioners. He also thought the hon. Gentleman who had brought in the Bill must by this time be convinced that it was hopeless to attempt to pass the Bill this Session, and therefore he (Mr. Denman) hoped, he would withdraw it, leaving the House to wait for a comprehensive measure on the subject being introduced by either the Government or a private Member. He would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Denman.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

COLONEL BERESFORD

opposed the second reading of the Bill.

MR. COLLINS

said, he thought the Bill was devised in the interest of certain professional men; but he was very jealous of anything which would in any shape or form destroy the principle of county registration, and he was in favour of a system of county registration in every part of the United Kingdom. He recommended the promoter of the Bill to study the system in operation in Yorkshire and to endeavour to extend it to all other parts of the kingdom. He objected also to the mode in which retiring allowances were provided for.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he must oppose the second reading of the Bill on this short ground, that registration was a good thing in itself, but the Bill did not deal with existing abuses. The proper mode of dealing with this question was to keep the good, which was the registration, and get rid of the abuses in the administration of the office. The Bill, moreover, proposed to deal with the question in a crude and unsatisfactory manner, and he would therefore vote against it.

Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill withdrawn.

House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.